Important Judgments and orders on Constitution Law

In Praveen Kumar Chaudhary v. Election Commission of India [65], while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 62(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (‘RPI Act’) and validating the classification enshrined therein between persons who were incarcerated and those who were not, the Court reiterated that the right to vote was not a fundamental right but only a statutory right which was subject to the limitation imposed by the relevant statute.

While proceeding to set aside a circular which had sought to impose a penalty on a person gaining access to a national highway without permission of the concerned authority, the Court in Indraprastha Gas Limited v. Union of India [66], reiterated that the power to levy penalty must necessarily be sourced from the statute or from a valid subordinate legislation and could not be sought to be vested by a mere administrative circular or letter.

In Sameer Jain v. Union of India [67], the Court rejected a challenge to the alleged excess delegation of powers to the Advertising Standard Council of India (‘ASCI’) inasmuch as it found that the ASCI was merely a recommendatory body and its recommendations were subject to final decision by the Union of India.

In Association of the Health Care Providers (India) v. Union of India [68], the Court observed that Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked to seek redressal of allegedly onerous and financially unviable terms of a government scheme inasmuch as it was for the party concerned to take a commercial decision as to whether to continue to offer its services under the concerned scheme or not.

In Ms. Azra v. The State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi) [69], the Court while reiterating that there is no right to negative equality, further held that merely because some of the occupants of the building had been wrongly given electricity by the concerned authority would not entitle the petitioner to receive the same benefit from the concerned authority inasmuch as it would amount to the compounding of an illegal act.

In Obsurge Biotech Limited. v. Union of India [70], the Court while interpreting the relevant provisions of the Drugs Prices Control Order, 2013, observed that the non-schedule formulation of drugs would also be extended the benefit of rounding of the pricing to the next whole number which was expressly made available to schedule formulations inasmuch as the same would otherwise amount to clear discrimination.

In Fresenius Kabi Oncology Limited v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes [71], the Court reiterated that the National Commission for Schedule Castes would only have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where there was a specific allegation of the violation of the rights and safeguards available to a person belonging to the scheduled caste community, and any dispute falling outside of the aforesaid spectrum could not be entertained.

In Ashok Kumar Jain v. National Law University Delhi, [72] the Court reiterated that a writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued if it is conclusively established that the person whose appointment is challenged indeed possesses the necessary qualifications for the post in question.